Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the PCIT's revisional order u/s 263. It held that the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was an "order" independent of the original assessment and was within the limitation period prescribed in s.263(2), hence not barred by limitation. Adequate opportunity of hearing was found to have been afforded through multiple notices and written submissions, satisfying the requirement of s.263, including by electronic mode as per s.2(23C). The AO's failure to disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions, contrary to s.36(1)(va) and binding precedent, rendered the reassessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ground on customs duty fine/penalty was not pressed and stood rejected.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the PCIT's revisional order u/s 263. It held that the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was an "order" independent of the original assessment and was within the limitation period prescribed in s.263(2), hence not barred by limitation. Adequate opportunity of hearing was found to have been afforded through multiple notices and written submissions, satisfying the requirement of s.263, including by electronic mode as per s.2(23C). The AO's failure to disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions, contrary to s.36(1)(va) and binding precedent, rendered the reassessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ground on customs duty fine/penalty was not pressed and stood rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.